Academic fraud hypo

[The Governor]

Forcing Julius Peppers and hundreds like him into phony courses of study = denying kids a chance at bettering themselves, no?

The system needs standards. An SAT cut-off may not be the right one, but there are too many people willing to write off the importance of a strong education for all - including those with 99th-percentile athletic ability.

I've always wondered why "well-rounded" resumes and diversity of experience (including extra-curricular interests, a wide sampling of academic coursework, and athletic participation) are popularly cited as essential for two-parent kids with 1540 SAT scores, yet the idea that the athletically-gifted needn't be bothered to broaden horizons or challenge themselves with academic work outside of their wheelhouse is dismissed as a luxury, some sort of pointy-headed snobbery. (Not saying you're guilty of that, but it's something that comes up frequently in this and similar threads; the diminished expectation that many fans and pundits hold for athletes strikes me as terribly unfair and counterproductive.)

UNC just assumed black kids couldn't do the work is the worst part of it for me.

 

[OttoMets]

UNC just assumed black kids couldn't do the work is the worst part of it for me.

"Soft bigotry of low expectations," is it?

Really doesn't sit well with me.

 

[mscanlo]

i would bet at most schools, not matter how good the school, a lot of kids don't fall within 10% to 20% of the average scores. if students can get in outside the 10%-20% range, why shouldn't student athletes be able to? why should good academic schools be disadvantaged from an athletic prospective, and why should an athlete not have the opportunity to better himself at a school he/she would not been able to get into from an academic prospective?

i was ~25% below my school's sat score and did fairly well

 

[dollarbill44]

I'm curious as to why you think a student with a lower test score or high school GPA cannot contribute positively to a University.

Academics are not and should not be the ONLY priority at a place of higher education. I think you've been socially conditioned to believe that. Why is it any less valid if a great basketball player comes to a university to learn to play basketball better? A university is there to provide education. Why is education in basketball completely invalid? What if they are from a disadvantaged upbringing or have a learning disability, and can't do better on a standardized test? Why does that mean they still can't contribute positively to a university? Universities are for-profit enterprises and should do whatever they can to maximize their brand value. Having great sports teams generally contributes positively to this brand value. Why do you think fraud happens everywhere? Maybe great sports helps universities? Do you REALLY think having a few "sub-par" students who excel in other areas in life will "cheapen" the value of your education that much? Really?

I'm really curious how people like you think about this stuff. It seems very narrow-minded of me. I personally believe a university should teach whatever the hell it wants to help people succeed in life, and moreover it should act in its own self-interest and maximize its value. If Julius peppers doesnt care for 1400s Literature, I do not give a . I'll go and continue to study Math and Economics. He is training to be a professional athlete, so let him learn those skills. He doesnt care about "academics" because 1400s Lit provides him zero marginal value. Who cares.

Actually, most universities are non-profit and shouldn't do "whatever they can" to maximize their brand value. There should absolutely be a code of ethics that they adhere to.

If one wants only to get an education in basketball, go live at an inner city playground. There are plenty of U.S. government-sponsored teams that one can play on while getting "educated".